3 ms·
Actually, what I want is a 17" screen (it's not just the pixels, I need the fonts to be big enough for my aging eyes) that is not crazy heavy.
by adamc 10y ago
Actually, what I want is a 17" screen (it's not just the pixels, I need the fonts to be big enough for my aging eyes) that is not crazy heavy.
- thaumasiotes 10y agoI don't understand the recent trend of very-high-resolution devices that strongly recommend you not adjust their 250% default scaling. OK, you have lots and lots of pixels that are too small to see individually or in combination. Put in a cheaper screen with the same functional resolution. Lower price, same quality.
- pkolaczk 10y agoThe quality is not the same. Lower resolution + anti-aliasing makes the text blurry.
- thaumasiotes 10y agoIf my screen requires 250% scaling to be usable (which I am not making up - that is precisely the scaling it "recommends"), then lower resolution with pixels that are six times bigger is not a loss of quality. Large black squares composed of smaller black squares are not somehow ineffably superior to large unitary black squares.
- pkolaczk 10y agoWait, wat? Are you using bitmap fonts? Scaling of vector fonts in modern desktop systems doesn't work that way. Scaling is done before rasterization, and you would get perfectly sharp edges with 250% scaling.